[at-l] topic police... I'll say it ---- having been.....

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 4/4/02 9:59:54 AM, kahley@ptd.net writes:

<< Didn't mean to say they were sent packing...not at all!  They saw
the negative comments and decided there was a value to the
complaints as well as sufficient interest to maintain a list
where the predominant focus was gear.  No hard feelings!
Sorry ...the angst I referred to was among those who resented
the increased gear content and repeatedly posted their views on same.


    ***  Be honest Kahley. Look at the traffic here. A good percentage of it 
deals with gear. What you are really talking about is a core of individuals 
who consider themselves the operators and speakers for AT-L. Since I see 
nowhere where Ryan appointed you or anyone else site moderator I can't see 
where you get the right to assume a steering position for such site matters...


. but I can't get around the necessity of a Topic
>Police Force, a thought way too ugly.)

If all parties were reasonable, you'd be wrong.  But what is the alternative?
Advocacy becomes the bailiwick of extremists?  Real discussion is driven
from the boards by the relentless, meaningless sermons and arguments?
How does that help the Trail? >>

    ***   The only real discussion being driven from the boards is Trail 
philosophy (an inherent AT component and thoroughly "on-topic"). I challenge 
you to show me a single instance where any conversation was driven from the 
board by Trail backers discussing ideological issues. 
     The answer is clearly to allow any on-topic AT issue without the 
disrupting protests some feel necessary to maintain the site. I believe the 
more pertinent question would be how negativizing Trail advocacy wherever it 
appears could possibly help the Trail? This is merely a Trail defeating 
schism designed to make ignoring critical Trail needs acceptable...